After the failure to find a temporary transit site to move travellers onto, Borough of Poole has now turned its sights towards protection.

However this is no quick fix as the environment overview and scrutiny committee’s recommendation went to cabinet last night with councillors deciding which measures are best for each site.

The first incursion last year was on May 23 on land adjacent to the Creekmoor park and ride, but travellers have arrived as early as March in previous years.

Cllr Tony Trent, chairman of the committee said before the meeting: “There was an urgency to getting some of the most vulnerable sites in Poole made more secure.

He added: “If there is any money remaining it will be prioritised towards the next most vulnerable sites that are close to children’s play area, sports facilities, and have suffered recent incursions.”

Jacqui Wilson, chairman of Branksome West Residents Association, who has been pushing for protection said: “It’s a brilliant idea.” She pointed out last year’s incursion cost the council around £1,500 – the same cost as protective barriers.

“And we might get some more extensive planting out of it. I shall be pushing for things to be in place by June,” she said.

In August last year 19 vans set up home on Branksome Rec for six days and court action was taken. Residents such as Hayley Smith, 29, are in favour of taking preventative measures.

“I think if it’s to protect it from greater damage it’s a worthwhile investment,” she said.

Shaun Robson, head of environmental and consumer protection said: “It is anticipated that some of these measures can be implemented reasonably quickly.

“Other options will take longer including the planting of hedges which cannot take place until the autumn. However, we will endeavour to complete these works as soon as we can.”

Branksome resident Mandy Smith, 52, who takes her grandchildren to play on the rec said: “I think this will help. If it stops them getting onto a quite popular piece of ground, go ahead. It needs to be done.”

Steve Ford, 49, who takes his children to play on the rec said: “There are not a huge amount of big open spaces around here. The more they can do to keep the travellers off the better it will be.”

Barbara Lankston, 65, from Parkstone, exercising her dog Katie at the rec said: “It’s absolutely 100 per cent a good idea. This is a lovely place. I come here in the car, it’s good for parking, children come to play, people walk through it to the shops.”

James Martin, 77, who walks his dog at the rec said: “They should put in a three ft railing fence all the way around and stabilise it into the ground so it can’t be pulled out.”

Comments have been opened on this story but please note: any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term will cause them to be closed and you may find your account suspended. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected by the Race Relations Act. Please keep your comments to this particular incident and do not generalise. Thanks for your co-operation.

Comments (142)

At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.

Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.

At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.
Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.TheDistrict

But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?

But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?BarrHumbug

Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?

Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?RageAgainstTheMachine

RageAgainstTheMachin
e wrote:
Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?

Oh, how could you cast aspersions, especially when councillor Trent is head of the committee?

[quote][p][bold]RageAgainstTheMachin
e[/bold] wrote:
Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?[/p][/quote]Oh, how could you cast aspersions, especially when councillor Trent is head of the committee?DorsetFerret

Poole Council to PROTECT ?
At Branksome the travellers ( cough cough ) ,ripped off the boundary fence around the field and the police told residence to get out the way ,and allow them onto the field.............so how are they going to react this year ,tell the police not to respond ? That would save a bit of money I think. Waste of time ....Councils .....And the cowards we have as a so called police force !!

Poole Council to PROTECT ?
At Branksome the travellers ( cough cough ) ,ripped off the boundary fence around the field and the police told residence to get out the way ,and allow them onto the field.............so how are they going to react this year ,tell the police not to respond ? That would save a bit of money I think. Waste of time ....Councils .....And the cowards we have as a so called police force !!Peroni

RageAgainstTheMachin
e wrote:
Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?

Don't know why they should - it wasn't the residents of Creekmoor or councillors of Creekmoor who caused the Planning Committee to reject the two proposed sites. Since when have the council ever listened to what residents want? The sites were rejected because the Planning Committee decided the two sites were totally unsuitable in terms of various safety aspects, wouldn't be used by the travellers and would be a total waste of any more council taxpayers money. They'd already wasted enough picking and spending money on the preparation of the two sites.
........
All that is the fault of the Planning Department for not looking at all aspects of the sites they suggested.

[quote][p][bold]RageAgainstTheMachin
e[/bold] wrote:
Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?[/p][/quote]Don't know why they should - it wasn't the residents of Creekmoor or councillors of Creekmoor who caused the Planning Committee to reject the two proposed sites. Since when have the council ever listened to what residents want? The sites were rejected because the Planning Committee decided the two sites were totally unsuitable in terms of various safety aspects, wouldn't be used by the travellers and would be a total waste of any more council taxpayers money. They'd already wasted enough picking and spending money on the preparation of the two sites.
........
All that is the fault of the Planning Department for not looking at all aspects of the sites they suggested.Carolyn43

e wrote:
Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?

Oh, how could you cast aspersions, especially when councillor Trent is head of the committee?

It does look a bit like the LibDem wards have done very nicely out of this...

[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]RageAgainstTheMachin
e[/bold] wrote:
Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list!
Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?[/p][/quote]Oh, how could you cast aspersions, especially when councillor Trent is head of the committee?[/p][/quote]It does look a bit like the LibDem wards have done very nicely out of this...Jo__Go

Wait for the first one to damage the SECURE SITE
grab him and hang him by his toenails to the nearest branch
the next ones to arrive will say **** this for a laugh
and will **** off with out being told.

Wait for the first one to damage the SECURE SITE
grab him and hang him by his toenails to the nearest branch
the next ones to arrive will say **** this for a laugh
and will **** off with out being told.nickynoodah

Why don't the council charge the gypsies and travellers to stay at these sites.....after all permanent residents have to pay council tax....it could be a one off payment....with fines for those that breach? Just an idea.....so don't all shoot me down....

Why don't the council charge the gypsies and travellers to stay at these sites.....after all permanent residents have to pay council tax....it could be a one off payment....with fines for those that breach? Just an idea.....so don't all shoot me down....KitKatPuss

I would be interested to know where this figure of £231,000 has come from because I was actually there at last nights cabinet meeting when it was clearly stated that the money that was originally set aside for the transit site could not automatically be allocated to be used for prevention measures as this was a separate thing altogether. Though I am pleased that prevention is now a course of action being followed, as it should have been in the first place.

I would be interested to know where this figure of £231,000 has come from because I was actually there at last nights cabinet meeting when it was clearly stated that the money that was originally set aside for the transit site could not automatically be allocated to be used for prevention measures as this was a separate thing altogether. Though I am pleased that prevention is now a course of action being followed, as it should have been in the first place.Marty Caine UKIP

TheDistrict wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.

Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.

On this occasion I am going to have to defend Bournemouth Council (there is a first time for everything...) because they have done an awful lot in the quite recent past to prevent illegal 'traveller' encampments. We certainly now have substantial defences on open space in the Strouden, Muscliff and Redhill areas, which following historic problems have lately proved extremely effective.

In this Poole situation the main question has to be why this was not done before, after all these incursions have been a predictable annual event. But more importantly will these physical actions be accompanied by a vital change of attitude from the authorities in Poole when an incursion occurs, regrettably we all know where the power sharing Lib Dems sympathies are, so best not to count on it.

[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.
Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.[/p][/quote]On this occasion I am going to have to defend Bournemouth Council (there is a first time for everything...) because they have done an awful lot in the quite recent past to prevent illegal 'traveller' encampments. We certainly now have substantial defences on open space in the Strouden, Muscliff and Redhill areas, which following historic problems have lately proved extremely effective.
In this Poole situation the main question has to be why this was not done before, after all these incursions have been a predictable annual event. But more importantly will these physical actions be accompanied by a vital change of attitude from the authorities in Poole when an incursion occurs, regrettably we all know where the power sharing Lib Dems sympathies are, so best not to count on it.muscliffman

BmthNewshound wrote:
This won't stop illegal traveller camps all it will do is move the problem to another site which hasn't been protected.

Are you not aware.....
They can break down fences etc and enter sites as and when they like.
They are not stopped ,they are allowed to do this,we the tax payers foot the bills for the damage caused and the clean up afterwards.
If I went to Branksome recreation ground tied a rope to the barrier and pulled it off drove my car and caravan over the field and set up camp....I would be prosecuted for criminal damage .
They are not !!!!

[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote:
This won't stop illegal traveller camps all it will do is move the problem to another site which hasn't been protected.[/p][/quote]Are you not aware.....
They can break down fences etc and enter sites as and when they like.
They are not stopped ,they are allowed to do this,we the tax payers foot the bills for the damage caused and the clean up afterwards.
If I went to Branksome recreation ground tied a rope to the barrier and pulled it off drove my car and caravan over the field and set up camp....I would be prosecuted for criminal damage .
They are not !!!!Peroni

WHY , WHY , WHY are these wasters not prosecuted ??? They leave a mess where ever they go , they just get away with it . they should be continually hounded by the authorities ,, all vehicles should be checked time and time again for tax, MOT etc . Why are they not charged ,, if i set up camp on public land i am sure i would be prosecuted for trespass and yet these vagabonds are allowed to .get away with it . The sooner the law starts to do its job and PROSECUTE , the sooner they will learn to behave .

WHY , WHY , WHY are these wasters not prosecuted ??? They leave a mess where ever they go , they just get away with it . they should be continually hounded by the authorities ,, all vehicles should be checked time and time again for tax, MOT etc . Why are they not charged ,, if i set up camp on public land i am sure i would be prosecuted for trespass and yet these vagabonds are allowed to .get away with it . The sooner the law starts to do its job and PROSECUTE , the sooner they will learn to behave .buster61

buster61 wrote:
WHY , WHY , WHY are these wasters not prosecuted ??? They leave a mess where ever they go , they just get away with it . they should be continually hounded by the authorities ,, all vehicles should be checked time and time again for tax, MOT etc . Why are they not charged ,, if i set up camp on public land i am sure i would be prosecuted for trespass and yet these vagabonds are allowed to .get away with it . The sooner the law starts to do its job and PROSECUTE , the sooner they will learn to behave .

I don't disagree, but if you did prosecute a 'traveller' for anything the authorities would have to hold that individual in immediate custody pending a Court appearance, because If a 'traveller' of no fixed abode (clue is in the name!) and probably uncertain identity is released on bail common sense informs that he/she will disappear down a long and winding road never to be seen again.

And of course we can all imagine what the 'human rights' liberal lefty brigade - of which there are rather too many inside our authorities - would have to say about that!

[quote][p][bold]buster61[/bold] wrote:
WHY , WHY , WHY are these wasters not prosecuted ??? They leave a mess where ever they go , they just get away with it . they should be continually hounded by the authorities ,, all vehicles should be checked time and time again for tax, MOT etc . Why are they not charged ,, if i set up camp on public land i am sure i would be prosecuted for trespass and yet these vagabonds are allowed to .get away with it . The sooner the law starts to do its job and PROSECUTE , the sooner they will learn to behave .[/p][/quote]I don't disagree, but if you did prosecute a 'traveller' for anything the authorities would have to hold that individual in immediate custody pending a Court appearance, because If a 'traveller' of no fixed abode (clue is in the name!) and probably uncertain identity is released on bail common sense informs that he/she will disappear down a long and winding road never to be seen again.
And of course we can all imagine what the 'human rights' liberal lefty brigade - of which there are rather too many inside our authorities - would have to say about that!muscliffman

Well done Poole council for taking the measures needed, here in Skegness our spineless council appear unwilling to take such preventative measures and we have to pay for the clean up afterwards, last time they descended on us there were 200 approx caravans, buisness couldn't open others shut etc etc etc

Well done Poole council for taking the measures needed, here in Skegness our spineless council appear unwilling to take such preventative measures and we have to pay for the clean up afterwards, last time they descended on us there were 200 approx caravans, buisness couldn't open others shut etc etc etcajkrs1

It won't deter them. There is/was a site outside Brighton where they were attempting to break in, and the local officials came along and opened the gates, citing they were a danger to themselves and passers-by... This neatly removed the ability to levy a charge of breaking and entering, plus immediate eviction, and the irate Police then had to apply for the usual paperwork to get shot of them....

It won't deter them. There is/was a site outside Brighton where they were attempting to break in, and the local officials came along and opened the gates, citing they were a danger to themselves and passers-by... This neatly removed the ability to levy a charge of breaking and entering, plus immediate eviction, and the irate Police then had to apply for the usual paperwork to get shot of them....
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2406776/Wild-Park-tr
avellers-force-Brigh
ton-Hove-Council-rem
ove-expensive-gate.h
tmlspeedy231278

ajkrs1 wrote:
Well done Poole council for taking the measures needed, here in Skegness our spineless council appear unwilling to take such preventative measures and we have to pay for the clean up afterwards, last time they descended on us there were 200 approx caravans, buisness couldn't open others shut etc etc etc

Well done ?
For what........ Are you also not aware ,if fences etc are erected ,they are allowed to pull them down and destroy perimeters to gain entry.
They were allowed to destroy metal perimeter fence and gain entry into Branksome. The so called Police allowed them to enter ,telling local residents not to stop them !
What purpose is it to erect fences if they are allowing them to destroy them to gain entry,we will just have to pay for the repairs !

[quote][p][bold]ajkrs1[/bold] wrote:
Well done Poole council for taking the measures needed, here in Skegness our spineless council appear unwilling to take such preventative measures and we have to pay for the clean up afterwards, last time they descended on us there were 200 approx caravans, buisness couldn't open others shut etc etc etc[/p][/quote]Well done ?
For what........ Are you also not aware ,if fences etc are erected ,they are allowed to pull them down and destroy perimeters to gain entry.
They were allowed to destroy metal perimeter fence and gain entry into Branksome. The so called Police allowed them to enter ,telling local residents not to stop them !
What purpose is it to erect fences if they are allowing them to destroy them to gain entry,we will just have to pay for the repairs !Peroni

The answer to this is simple but so far only 17 people have signed to take away the ethnic status of gypsies/travellers so I think lots of people are more talk than action. epetitions.direct.go
v.uk/petitions/61822

The answer to this is simple but so far only 17 people have signed to take away the ethnic status of gypsies/travellers so I think lots of people are more talk than action. epetitions.direct.go
v.uk/petitions/61822justsayithowitis

Let them come, block them in and then send in various government organiastions including DVLA, HMRC, VAT man, health and safety executive, TV licencing and subject them to the scrutiny we are subjected to.

Let them come, block them in and then send in various government organiastions including DVLA, HMRC, VAT man, health and safety executive, TV licencing and subject them to the scrutiny we are subjected to.Bournemouth Ohec

I was in France recently when a crime was committed by a , so called , " traveler " !!! ,, i had it explained to me that the police knew exactly who had perpetrated the said crime but would not be prosecuting as they would lose the case . The reason given was that , all travelers in France pay an amount every month into a fund . This fund is used to employ the best lawyer in France to defend all their prosecutions , and he never loses apparently . I wonder if the same thing happens in the UK ???? That would explain why they get away with so much and the reason why prosecutions are not brought .

I was in France recently when a crime was committed by a , so called , " traveler " !!! ,, i had it explained to me that the police knew exactly who had perpetrated the said crime but would not be prosecuting as they would lose the case . The reason given was that , all travelers in France pay an amount every month into a fund . This fund is used to employ the best lawyer in France to defend all their prosecutions , and he never loses apparently . I wonder if the same thing happens in the UK ???? That would explain why they get away with so much and the reason why prosecutions are not brought .buster61

Poole council need to act now not after,the police also need to act eg road tax mot's,charge them with breaking &entering,make sure they go to a registered site.better still cancel the Dorset steam fair.

Poole council need to act now not after,the police also need to act eg road tax mot's,charge them with breaking &entering,make sure they go to a registered site.better still cancel the Dorset steam fair.60plus

Well done Poole Council!
Bournemouth has 10 Local Nature Reserves and I hope Bournemouth follow their lead in giving these sites adequate protection! Although some barriers are in place, it is simply not enough!

Well done Poole Council!
Bournemouth has 10 Local Nature Reserves and I hope Bournemouth follow their lead in giving these sites adequate protection! Although some barriers are in place, it is simply not enough!G from Kinson

Well done Poole Council, the Lockdown we have been wanting for ages., You do listen to people, it just takes a while... Let's see what happens this summer, we can't keep them out of Poole, as it is a free country but we can at least protect our special places

Well done Poole Council, the Lockdown we have been wanting for ages., You do listen to people, it just takes a while... Let's see what happens this summer, we can't keep them out of Poole, as it is a free country but we can at least protect our special placesfairandsquared

Just typed it in and it comes up so don't know why you are having a problem. You could go to gov.uk and search for epetitions. Type in ethnic status travellers and sign. Problem hopefully solved if enough people do it

[quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote:
Tried unsuccessful to find that petition on website.[/p][/quote]Just typed it in and it comes up so don't know why you are having a problem. You could go to gov.uk and search for epetitions. Type in ethnic status travellers and sign. Problem hopefully solved if enough people do itjustsayithowitis

Let's get this straight these people are not "travellers" they are people with a regular address looking for a cheap holiday, the answer is easy, just explain to them that there are local holiday parks that accept caravans, inform them of the daily cost of each site and if they don't move voluntarily tow them off where they are illegally parked.

Let's get this straight these people are not "travellers" they are people with a regular address looking for a cheap holiday, the answer is easy, just explain to them that there are local holiday parks that accept caravans, inform them of the daily cost of each site and if they don't move voluntarily tow them off where they are illegally parked.BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth

Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.

That is what people do.

Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.
That is what people do.Yankee1

Yankee1 wrote:
Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.

That is what people do.

How dare you suggest paying your own way in life as part of society! Have you not read the Echo disclaimer?

[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote:
Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.
That is what people do.[/p][/quote]How dare you suggest paying your own way in life as part of society! Have you not read the Echo disclaimer?mikeymagic

Or maybe have a government who will challenge this absurd ruling (made in an English court) that climbing into a caravan and driving to another country, or part of a country qualifies you to be a differenet ethnic group.

But then that will only happen when these folk pitch up in rural Oxfordshire where Mr Cameron and his lot reside - and these supposed travellers know better that to do that. Just as they consciously avoid the huge grounds of stately homes.

The only time they go near those who run and own most of the country is when they visit a lawyers office to pay him to plead their case ........ and the only way their annual rampages will be stopped is by removing this absurd ruling.

Then there would be no need for barriers, fences or ditches, and the lawyers would still get their fat fees, only this time in prosecution fees !

Or maybe have a government who will challenge this absurd ruling (made in an English court) that climbing into a caravan and driving to another country, or part of a country qualifies you to be a differenet ethnic group.
But then that will only happen when these folk pitch up in rural Oxfordshire where Mr Cameron and his lot reside - and these supposed travellers know better that to do that. Just as they consciously avoid the huge grounds of stately homes.
The only time they go near those who run and own most of the country is when they visit a lawyers office to pay him to plead their case ........ and the only way their annual rampages will be stopped is by removing this absurd ruling.
Then there would be no need for barriers, fences or ditches, and the lawyers would still get their fat fees, only this time in prosecution fees !Bob49

''The first incursions were 23 May, or earlier''
I will push to have this in place by June................
...
Might be a little late by then I think. When the word gets around the travelling community I feel we could see more than we ever have before, trying to prove a point and make a stand for their 'rights'. No free land will be safe.

''The first incursions were 23 May, or earlier''
I will push to have this in place by June................
...
Might be a little late by then I think. When the word gets around the travelling community I feel we could see more than we ever have before, trying to prove a point and make a stand for their 'rights'. No free land will be safe.canfordcherry

This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.

This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.MMM444

MrDMan wrote:
How much would it cost to arm local residents with rocket launchers?

Less than it would cost to clean up after them :-)

I was curious how much it costs to clean up after them. Where does the money come from exactly? Is it central government grants? Local council tax? (ultimately tax payers I know) I do struggle to understand why this way of life is still protected under a minority policy. Everyone else has to have permits and pay fees for similar privalidges, and consequences for breaking the law. It all seems daft to me. They are protected on one hand, then refused to camp in the other, but do it any way without fear of consequences. Isn't it about time that these traditions are looked at properly? It's not a viable way of life in a modern society, surly?

[quote][p][bold]Bloss45[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MrDMan[/bold] wrote:
How much would it cost to arm local residents with rocket launchers?[/p][/quote]Less than it would cost to clean up after them :-)[/p][/quote]I was curious how much it costs to clean up after them. Where does the money come from exactly? Is it central government grants? Local council tax? (ultimately tax payers I know) I do struggle to understand why this way of life is still protected under a minority policy. Everyone else has to have permits and pay fees for similar privalidges, and consequences for breaking the law. It all seems daft to me. They are protected on one hand, then refused to camp in the other, but do it any way without fear of consequences. Isn't it about time that these traditions are looked at properly? It's not a viable way of life in a modern society, surly?poolebabe

MMM444 wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.

...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?

[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.[/p][/quote]...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?Baysider

Yankee1 wrote:
Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.

That is what people do.

How dare you suggest paying your own way in life as part of society! Have you not read the Echo disclaimer?

p.s. that was sarcasm!

[quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote:
Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.
That is what people do.[/p][/quote]How dare you suggest paying your own way in life as part of society! Have you not read the Echo disclaimer?[/p][/quote]p.s. that was sarcasm!mikeymagic

Lots of people complaining about travellers and their rights but only 2 more signatures today. Waste of time trying to change things when people have time to comment but not to add their name to a petition to stop the thing they are complaining about

Lots of people complaining about travellers and their rights but only 2 more signatures today. Waste of time trying to change things when people have time to comment but not to add their name to a petition to stop the thing they are complaining aboutjustsayithowitis

Poole Council had better HURRY up and erect a metal gate to the entrance of The Poole Rugby club / Poole Bourough Football club recreation grounds at TURLIN MOOR,Before the travellers turn up,
Because at the moment the large car park there is a sitting duck.

Poole Council had better HURRY up and erect a metal gate to the entrance of The Poole Rugby club / Poole Bourough Football club recreation grounds at TURLIN MOOR,Before the travellers turn up,
Because at the moment the large car park there is a sitting duck.cromwell9

cromwell9 wrote:
Poole Council had better HURRY up and erect a metal gate to the entrance of The Poole Rugby club / Poole Bourough Football club recreation grounds at TURLIN MOOR,Before the travellers turn up,
Because at the moment the large car park there is a sitting duck.

I think you people should find out facts .
These so called travellers pull fences and gates down !
That's not the problem......the problem is these councils and police allow the so called travellers to stay ,until court action forces eviction .
Even if they commit criminal damage in the process and littering and pollution to the area and intimidation to local residence and theft from local shops and property.
You think a gate will stop them ........lol

[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote:
Poole Council had better HURRY up and erect a metal gate to the entrance of The Poole Rugby club / Poole Bourough Football club recreation grounds at TURLIN MOOR,Before the travellers turn up,
Because at the moment the large car park there is a sitting duck.[/p][/quote]I think you people should find out facts .
These so called travellers pull fences and gates down !
That's not the problem......the problem is these councils and police allow the so called travellers to stay ,until court action forces eviction .
Even if they commit criminal damage in the process and littering and pollution to the area and intimidation to local residence and theft from local shops and property.
You think a gate will stop them ........lolPeroni

MMM444 wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.

...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?

How can it be illegal if there are private land, they break down fences, wreck the land, leave rubbish and there toilet droppings all over the place, there lawless thugs, compo to them??, for what ??, You one of them no win no fee lawyers?? There's nothing to think about, there tresspassing, end of.

[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.[/p][/quote]...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?[/p][/quote]How can it be illegal if there are private land, they break down fences, wreck the land, leave rubbish and there toilet droppings all over the place, there lawless thugs, compo to them??, for what ??, You one of them no win no fee lawyers?? There's nothing to think about, there tresspassing, end of.MMM444

MMM444 wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.

...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?

How can it be illegal if there are private land, they break down fences, wreck the land, leave rubbish and there toilet droppings all over the place, there lawless thugs, compo to them??, for what ??, You one of them no win no fee lawyers?? There's nothing to think about, there tresspassing, end of.

Oh I see you can do whatever you fancy if it happens on private land can you? I wasn't aware there were exemptions like that in place.

[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.[/p][/quote]...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?[/p][/quote]How can it be illegal if there are private land, they break down fences, wreck the land, leave rubbish and there toilet droppings all over the place, there lawless thugs, compo to them??, for what ??, You one of them no win no fee lawyers?? There's nothing to think about, there tresspassing, end of.[/p][/quote]Oh I see you can do whatever you fancy if it happens on private land can you? I wasn't aware there were exemptions like that in place.Baysider

Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..

Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..ADST_2008

Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there & then & have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.

We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.

Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there & then & have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.
We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.corozin

corozin wrote:
Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there &amp; then &amp; have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.

We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.

Oh dear

THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAW !

That is the whole problem

look up the ruling that gave these people an 'ethnic' status and see what that requires BY LAW local councils to do

grasp that and the rest falls into place

[quote][p][bold]corozin[/bold] wrote:
Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there & then & have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.
We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.[/p][/quote]Oh dear
THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAW !
That is the whole problem
look up the ruling that gave these people an 'ethnic' status and see what that requires BY LAW local councils to do
grasp that and the rest falls into placeBob49

many thanks for highlighting the pettion. I have signed it and shared it on facebook and suggest others do too. the more people that are aware of the petition the more that will sign. Do something positive about the problem - spread the word in whatever way you can

many thanks for highlighting the pettion. I have signed it and shared it on facebook and suggest others do too. the more people that are aware of the petition the more that will sign. Do something positive about the problem - spread the word in whatever way you cansooooz

ADST_2008 wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..

**** what the EU says these travellers don't pay a penny into the coffers of this land why should they be entitled to anything. Why should they not pay for their destruction like anyone else would have to. The trouble is we in this country **** foot around these people.,I have seen in France what the police do to evict these people and they don't mess about.pity we don't do the same . All these people do is put a drain on the economy.

[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..[/p][/quote]**** what the EU says these travellers don't pay a penny into the coffers of this land why should they be entitled to anything. Why should they not pay for their destruction like anyone else would have to. The trouble is we in this country **** foot around these people.,I have seen in France what the police do to evict these people and they don't mess about.pity we don't do the same . All these people do is put a drain on the economy.skydriver

ADST_2008 wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..

Hadn't you noticed? There aren't even 3 places suitable for pitches in the WHOLE of Poole, let alone in each ward!!!
......
Are you not aware of what went on during January, February and March this year when just 2 wholly unsuitable sites (being the only ones that could even remotely be considered as possible pitches) were rejected on several very sound grounds?
......
So let's have your suggestions for the 3 pitches in each ward. If a Borough-wide survey couldn't find any, I'm sure they'd be interested to hear the ones you've found. You also have to bear in mind that there can't be ANY in the wards of Eades and Atkinson.

[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..[/p][/quote]Hadn't you noticed? There aren't even 3 places suitable for pitches in the WHOLE of Poole, let alone in each ward!!!
......
Are you not aware of what went on during January, February and March this year when just 2 wholly unsuitable sites (being the only ones that could even remotely be considered as possible pitches) were rejected on several very sound grounds?
......
So let's have your suggestions for the 3 pitches in each ward. If a Borough-wide survey couldn't find any, I'm sure they'd be interested to hear the ones you've found. You also have to bear in mind that there can't be ANY in the wards of Eades and Atkinson.Carolyn43

Bournemouth Ohec wrote:
Let them come, block them in and then send in various government organiastions including DVLA, HMRC, VAT man, health and safety executive, TV licencing and subject them to the scrutiny we are subjected to.

Unfortunately, all these bastions of officialdom who are quite happy to hound any working taxpayer from cradle to grave with checks for this, checks for that and checks for absolutely anything else they can think of, suddenly develop a terrible blindness & a broad yellow streak down their backs when it comes to approaching travellers to carry out any of these same checks. Last year on the Dorset C.C. website it rated that when illegal camps were set up police procedure was to visit the site & check MOTs etc. At the Poole Council meeting about travellers in October I asked if any of these checks had been carried out at Branksome Rec? No.Why not? The reply was something about not wanting to antagonise the travellers. IMO the police last year were about as much use as a chocolate teapot when it came to protecting the rights & safety of reidents.

[quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Ohec[/bold] wrote:
Let them come, block them in and then send in various government organiastions including DVLA, HMRC, VAT man, health and safety executive, TV licencing and subject them to the scrutiny we are subjected to.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, all these bastions of officialdom who are quite happy to hound any working taxpayer from cradle to grave with checks for this, checks for that and checks for absolutely anything else they can think of, suddenly develop a terrible blindness & a broad yellow streak down their backs when it comes to approaching travellers to carry out any of these same checks. Last year on the Dorset C.C. website it rated that when illegal camps were set up police procedure was to visit the site & check MOTs etc. At the Poole Council meeting about travellers in October I asked if any of these checks had been carried out at Branksome Rec? No.Why not? The reply was something about not wanting to antagonise the travellers. IMO the police last year were about as much use as a chocolate teapot when it came to protecting the rights & safety of reidents.RM

An aside - just been trying to find out from the Borough of Poole web site when Eades gets replaced as Mayor, but can't find it. Can anyone tell me?
........
Interestingly, what it does say is that the mayor has to be impartial at all times. Yeah, right.

An aside - just been trying to find out from the Borough of Poole web site when Eades gets replaced as Mayor, but can't find it. Can anyone tell me?
........
Interestingly, what it does say is that the mayor has to be impartial at all times. Yeah, right.Carolyn43

TheDistrict wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.

Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.

Isnt it really poole council following bournmouths lead? last year there were pretty much no traveller camps in bournmouth, they were nearly all in Poole - because bournemouth council has put in lots of defences and actively discourgaes travellers, hence they all went to poole in 2013.

[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.
Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.[/p][/quote]Isnt it really poole council following bournmouths lead? last year there were pretty much no traveller camps in bournmouth, they were nearly all in Poole - because bournemouth council has put in lots of defences and actively discourgaes travellers, hence they all went to poole in 2013.NickTheGreekinBmth

TheDistrict wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.

Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.

Isnt it really poole council following bournmouths lead? last year there were pretty much no traveller camps in bournmouth, they were nearly all in Poole - because bournemouth council has put in lots of defences and actively discourgaes travellers, hence they all went to poole in 2013.

Apart from when they forgot to lock the gate and replace the boulders at Slades Farm........Doh!

[quote][p][bold]NickTheGreekinBmth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.
Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.[/p][/quote]Isnt it really poole council following bournmouths lead? last year there were pretty much no traveller camps in bournmouth, they were nearly all in Poole - because bournemouth council has put in lots of defences and actively discourgaes travellers, hence they all went to poole in 2013.[/p][/quote]Apart from when they forgot to lock the gate and replace the boulders at Slades Farm........Doh!BarrHumbug

I see Eades & Atkinson are looking after where they live yet again & also the more affluent area's,no mention of creekmoor? mmmm?

Last year the old bill (dorset police) watched them breaking & entering & infact might as well of waved them on to the farm land at meadowsweet road creekmoor ! what a joke !

Still as long as branksome rec,baiter etc are ok that's all that matters !

I see Eades & Atkinson are looking after where they live yet again & also the more affluent area's,no mention of creekmoor? mmmm?
Last year the old bill (dorset police) watched them breaking & entering & infact might as well of waved them on to the farm land at meadowsweet road creekmoor ! what a joke !
Still as long as branksome rec,baiter etc are ok that's all that matters !moorite

MMM444 wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.

...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?

And what they do every year clearly is, isn't it!

[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote:
This problem is easy to resolve, once they have entered private or council land, seize one of there 50 grand motorhomes and sell it at auction to reimburse for the damage and mess caused to that lands owners, think your find they will not be doing that again, job done.[/p][/quote]...and spend £100,000 in legal costs and compo afterwards when what you're describing is held to be illegal. You haven't really thought this through have you?[/p][/quote]And what they do every year clearly is, isn't it!speedy231278

It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.Tony Trent

TheDistrict wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.

Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.

Isnt it really poole council following bournmouths lead? last year there were pretty much no traveller camps in bournmouth, they were nearly all in Poole - because bournemouth council has put in lots of defences and actively discourgaes travellers, hence they all went to poole in 2013.

You obviously never went near Kinson or Wallisdown then.

[quote][p][bold]NickTheGreekinBmth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.
Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.[/p][/quote]Isnt it really poole council following bournmouths lead? last year there were pretty much no traveller camps in bournmouth, they were nearly all in Poole - because bournemouth council has put in lots of defences and actively discourgaes travellers, hence they all went to poole in 2013.[/p][/quote]You obviously never went near Kinson or Wallisdown then.Tony Trent

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.Peroni

Tony Trent said:
"The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. "
.......
So you're saying that the businesses and residents of Creekmoor all got together along with several other parties from outside the area and all colluded to scupper the most UNSUITABLE site for a TSP? I think you are insulting everyone who put forward real reasons why this was not a suitable site. You are also insulting your colleagues on the Planning Committee who agreed that planning permission should not be granted for a site contaminated with methane, noise, light at night, traffic fumes as well as likely to cause accidents to both travellers and motorists on a busy dual carriageway. Bet you're popular with those colleagues for slagging them off like that.
.......
The council never listens to what residents in a particular area want - only what certain councillors want - so if the council had really though the sites were suitable, they'd have gone ahead regardless of objections as they have in the past. Fortunately common sense prevailed before too much council tax payers money was wasted on a site which wouldn't be used, even though some councillors were intend on another waste of space and resources.
......
Remember residents know this borough is a dictatorship, and not a democracy - the present move to considering committees rather than the current dictatorial cabinet system shows that this is so.

Tony Trent said:
"The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. "
.......
So you're saying that the businesses and residents of Creekmoor all got together along with several other parties from outside the area and all colluded to scupper the most UNSUITABLE site for a TSP? I think you are insulting everyone who put forward real reasons why this was not a suitable site. You are also insulting your colleagues on the Planning Committee who agreed that planning permission should not be granted for a site contaminated with methane, noise, light at night, traffic fumes as well as likely to cause accidents to both travellers and motorists on a busy dual carriageway. Bet you're popular with those colleagues for slagging them off like that.
.......
The council never listens to what residents in a particular area want - only what certain councillors want - so if the council had really though the sites were suitable, they'd have gone ahead regardless of objections as they have in the past. Fortunately common sense prevailed before too much council tax payers money was wasted on a site which wouldn't be used, even though some councillors were intend on another waste of space and resources.
......
Remember residents know this borough is a dictatorship, and not a democracy - the present move to considering committees rather than the current dictatorial cabinet system shows that this is so.Carolyn43

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Well actually the temporary stopping place was not the best solution because all that would really do is show the travellers what a soft touch Poole Council is and if you built a site for 30 you can be sure that 60 would turn up, so in fact instead of actually solving the problem you would only be making it far worse and at a major expense to the taxpayers.

The best solution is to get a decent MP that will lobby Westminster to get the law changed so the police are not restricted with their powers to remove them, unfortunately our current MP Robert Syms is far more concerned with allowing surrounding areas to send their own problems to Poole and I sincerely hope that the people of Poole remember that at next years general election.

[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Well actually the temporary stopping place was not the best solution because all that would really do is show the travellers what a soft touch Poole Council is and if you built a site for 30 you can be sure that 60 would turn up, so in fact instead of actually solving the problem you would only be making it far worse and at a major expense to the taxpayers.
The best solution is to get a decent MP that will lobby Westminster to get the law changed so the police are not restricted with their powers to remove them, unfortunately our current MP Robert Syms is far more concerned with allowing surrounding areas to send their own problems to Poole and I sincerely hope that the people of Poole remember that at next years general election.Marty Caine UKIP

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.

[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.[/p][/quote]No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.Tony Trent

TheDistrict wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.

Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.

On this occasion I am going to have to defend Bournemouth Council (there is a first time for everything...) because they have done an awful lot in the quite recent past to prevent illegal 'traveller' encampments. We certainly now have substantial defences on open space in the Strouden, Muscliff and Redhill areas, which following historic problems have lately proved extremely effective.

In this Poole situation the main question has to be why this was not done before, after all these incursions have been a predictable annual event. But more importantly will these physical actions be accompanied by a vital change of attitude from the authorities in Poole when an incursion occurs, regrettably we all know where the power sharing Lib Dems sympathies are, so best not to count on it.

Bournemouth have only indicated they have secured Kings Park. My query was this going to happen at other park areas in the conurbation. Clearly it has in some areas, but there is more to Bournemouth than Strouden, Redhill and Muscliff. I was not condeming Bournemouth Council, merely asking a question Muscliffman (or is it Mr. Whittaker).....lol

[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
At last, one council putting the money to better use. Maybe a glimmer of hope that we can enjoy the park areas without the influx of caravans and trailers, and the dirty left behinds that remain after they have gone.
Bournemouth, you did this to Kings Park, what about the rest of Bournemouth Parks.[/p][/quote]On this occasion I am going to have to defend Bournemouth Council (there is a first time for everything...) because they have done an awful lot in the quite recent past to prevent illegal 'traveller' encampments. We certainly now have substantial defences on open space in the Strouden, Muscliff and Redhill areas, which following historic problems have lately proved extremely effective.
In this Poole situation the main question has to be why this was not done before, after all these incursions have been a predictable annual event. But more importantly will these physical actions be accompanied by a vital change of attitude from the authorities in Poole when an incursion occurs, regrettably we all know where the power sharing Lib Dems sympathies are, so best not to count on it.[/p][/quote]Bournemouth have only indicated they have secured Kings Park. My query was this going to happen at other park areas in the conurbation. Clearly it has in some areas, but there is more to Bournemouth than Strouden, Redhill and Muscliff. I was not condeming Bournemouth Council, merely asking a question Muscliffman (or is it Mr. Whittaker).....lolTheDistrict

You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.DorsetFerret

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?Tony Trent

BarrHumbug wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?

Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.

[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?[/p][/quote]Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.Letcommonsenseprevail

BarrHumbug wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?

Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.

[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?[/p][/quote]Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.Letcommonsenseprevail

Yankee1 wrote:
Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.

That is what people do.

How dare you suggest paying your own way in life as part of society! Have you not read the Echo disclaimer?

p.s. that was sarcasm!

Not true. Most campsites refuse entry to 'travellers'........
................prob
ably on the grounds that all the normal, law-abiding, holiday-makers would immediately leave...............
.......

[quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote:
Travelers are welcome to book pitches at any the the many caravan and tent sites in Dorset. All they need to do is supply a valid credit card and pay up front, and follow the park rules.
That is what people do.[/p][/quote]How dare you suggest paying your own way in life as part of society! Have you not read the Echo disclaimer?[/p][/quote]p.s. that was sarcasm![/p][/quote]Not true. Most campsites refuse entry to 'travellers'........
................prob
ably on the grounds that all the normal, law-abiding, holiday-makers would immediately leave...............
.......Letcommonsenseprevail

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

No....For being quite offensive to the good people of Creekmoor.

[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]No....For being quite offensive to the good people of Creekmoor.DorsetFerret

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)Marty Caine UKIP

I wonder if the Council have thought of CCTV on places like Branksome Rec and then at least they may be able to have clear evidence of any criminal activities, not only in relation to the travellers but anyone using those open spaces. It will be all too easy for anyone to smash down something that is stopping them accessing the land and then saying it was already like that when they arrived and without evidence you can't prosecute.

I wonder if the Council have thought of CCTV on places like Branksome Rec and then at least they may be able to have clear evidence of any criminal activities, not only in relation to the travellers but anyone using those open spaces. It will be all too easy for anyone to smash down something that is stopping them accessing the land and then saying it was already like that when they arrived and without evidence you can't prosecute.Marty Caine UKIP

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)[/p][/quote]Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...Baysider

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...

The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.

[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)[/p][/quote]Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...[/p][/quote]The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.Marty Caine UKIP

Carolyn43 wrote:
An aside - just been trying to find out from the Borough of Poole web site when Eades gets replaced as Mayor, but can't find it. Can anyone tell me?
........
Interestingly, what it does say is that the mayor has to be impartial at all times. Yeah, right.

In the game of RollOver Piggy, each May the Sherriff becomes the Mayor, The Mayor becomes the Deputy Mayor, and the Deputy Mayor goes for a lie down. So we're stuck with Eades meddling for at least another year.

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
An aside - just been trying to find out from the Borough of Poole web site when Eades gets replaced as Mayor, but can't find it. Can anyone tell me?
........
Interestingly, what it does say is that the mayor has to be impartial at all times. Yeah, right.[/p][/quote]In the game of RollOver Piggy, each May the Sherriff becomes the Mayor, The Mayor becomes the Deputy Mayor, and the Deputy Mayor goes for a lie down. So we're stuck with Eades meddling for at least another year.Jo__Go

Tiny Trent says:
"The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years."

Two basic errors there, as you full well know Cllr Trent. The sites were utterly UNsuitable, as evidenced by the Planning Cttee decision, and the effective campaign was not about spin, but about the very obvious facts of the case, as evidenced by the submissions to Planning Cttee which led them to refuse the proposal.

I like to think you're basically a decent bloke, but on this one it's time to pick up the toys, put them back in the pram, and move on.

"The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities." Rings a bit hollow to those of us that have had frequent incursions on close-by sites, and presumably will now be even more at risk if the protections work. Also a touch odd that four out of six sites are in wards that are wholly LibDem ... smacks of partiality.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that sites should be protected, but that needs to go alongside a wider strategy of denial of access across the borough using intelligence-led operations.

Tiny Trent says:
"The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years."
Two basic errors there, as you full well know Cllr Trent. The sites were utterly UNsuitable, as evidenced by the Planning Cttee decision, and the effective campaign was not about spin, but about the very obvious facts of the case, as evidenced by the submissions to Planning Cttee which led them to refuse the proposal.
I like to think you're basically a decent bloke, but on this one it's time to pick up the toys, put them back in the pram, and move on.
"The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities." Rings a bit hollow to those of us that have had frequent incursions on close-by sites, and presumably will now be even more at risk if the protections work. Also a touch odd that four out of six sites are in wards that are wholly LibDem ... smacks of partiality.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that sites should be protected, but that needs to go alongside a wider strategy of denial of access across the borough using intelligence-led operations.Jo__Go

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...

The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.

You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)[/p][/quote]Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...[/p][/quote]The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.[/p][/quote]You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.Baysider

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

No....For being quite offensive to the good people of Creekmoor.

As I've said before, in general I have no time for politicians at any level and now we have proof of their opinion of the electorate, so my opinion is justified.
.......
We've now had two LibDems, Tony Trent and Mike Supersnooper, ignoring the facts over the proposed TSPs and being totally offensive to the residents of Creekmoor. If they are typical of LibDems in their nasty attitudes to the people they are supposed to be working for (the people of Poole) and who pay their allowances and expenses, I sincerely hope there are fewer of them on Poole Council at the next election, especially these two.
.......
Their party has already gone down the pan in Westminster, hopefully they will in Poole as well.

[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]No....For being quite offensive to the good people of Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]As I've said before, in general I have no time for politicians at any level and now we have proof of their opinion of the electorate, so my opinion is justified.
.......
We've now had two LibDems, Tony Trent and Mike Supersnooper, ignoring the facts over the proposed TSPs and being totally offensive to the residents of Creekmoor. If they are typical of LibDems in their nasty attitudes to the people they are supposed to be working for (the people of Poole) and who pay their allowances and expenses, I sincerely hope there are fewer of them on Poole Council at the next election, especially these two.
.......
Their party has already gone down the pan in Westminster, hopefully they will in Poole as well.Carolyn43

Carolyn43 wrote:
An aside - just been trying to find out from the Borough of Poole web site when Eades gets replaced as Mayor, but can't find it. Can anyone tell me?
........
Interestingly, what it does say is that the mayor has to be impartial at all times. Yeah, right.

In the game of RollOver Piggy, each May the Sherriff becomes the Mayor, The Mayor becomes the Deputy Mayor, and the Deputy Mayor goes for a lie down. So we're stuck with Eades meddling for at least another year.

Thanks for that. Wonder if the new mayor will be as impartial as the current one.

[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
An aside - just been trying to find out from the Borough of Poole web site when Eades gets replaced as Mayor, but can't find it. Can anyone tell me?
........
Interestingly, what it does say is that the mayor has to be impartial at all times. Yeah, right.[/p][/quote]In the game of RollOver Piggy, each May the Sherriff becomes the Mayor, The Mayor becomes the Deputy Mayor, and the Deputy Mayor goes for a lie down. So we're stuck with Eades meddling for at least another year.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. Wonder if the new mayor will be as impartial as the current one.Carolyn43

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...

The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.

You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.

You do realise that getting abuse from someone who does not have the guts to put their name to what they say only amuses me, especially when I know that if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU and this country would have been handed over to a bunch of dangerous unelected bureaucrats without any public consultation whatsoever.

[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)[/p][/quote]Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...[/p][/quote]The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.[/p][/quote]You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.[/p][/quote]You do realise that getting abuse from someone who does not have the guts to put their name to what they say only amuses me, especially when I know that if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU and this country would have been handed over to a bunch of dangerous unelected bureaucrats without any public consultation whatsoever.Marty Caine UKIP

"if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU "

really ?

was it UKIP who told us that Farage has trousered around £2m in expenses from the EU, or that he employs his wife (as with other dodgy MPs) who is German to do (cook) his books ?

so you carry on bleating out your ill informed nonsense Marti as the louder your squeaks are the less the serious questions can be heard - and the better that suits the other three

"if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU "
really ?
was it UKIP who told us that Farage has trousered around £2m in expenses from the EU, or that he employs his wife (as with other dodgy MPs) who is German to do (cook) his books ?
so you carry on bleating out your ill informed nonsense Marti as the louder your squeaks are the less the serious questions can be heard - and the better that suits the other threeBob49

corozin wrote:
Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there &amp; then &amp; have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.

We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.

Oh dear

THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAW !

That is the whole problem

look up the ruling that gave these people an 'ethnic' status and see what that requires BY LAW local councils to do

grasp that and the rest falls into place

You can thank LABOUR a .LIB DEMS for that ETHNIC law .
Iff they get back in ,we are all doomed.

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]corozin[/bold] wrote:
Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there & then & have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.
We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.[/p][/quote]Oh dear
THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAW !
That is the whole problem
look up the ruling that gave these people an 'ethnic' status and see what that requires BY LAW local councils to do
grasp that and the rest falls into place[/p][/quote]You can thank LABOUR a .LIB DEMS for that ETHNIC law .
Iff they get back in ,we are all doomed.cromwell9

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

The best thing you can do Mr Trent is join them,and take them all with you across the water to the EU,
I tell you somthing .The British people.
have just about had anough of the EU human writes act ,and the EU,
We did not fight two world wars ,just to hand over our country to the EU Germans or anybody else ,.
All wil be revealed on May 22nd, just how much the BRITS feel,about all these isues,
The game is up Mr Trent.

[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]The best thing you can do Mr Trent is join them,and take them all with you across the water to the EU,
I tell you somthing .The British people.
have just about had anough of the EU human writes act ,and the EU,
We did not fight two world wars ,just to hand over our country to the EU Germans or anybody else ,.
All wil be revealed on May 22nd, just how much the BRITS feel,about all these isues,
The game is up Mr Trent.cromwell9

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

No....For being quite offensive to the good people of Creekmoor.

As I've said before, in general I have no time for politicians at any level and now we have proof of their opinion of the electorate, so my opinion is justified.
.......
We've now had two LibDems, Tony Trent and Mike Supersnooper, ignoring the facts over the proposed TSPs and being totally offensive to the residents of Creekmoor. If they are typical of LibDems in their nasty attitudes to the people they are supposed to be working for (the people of Poole) and who pay their allowances and expenses, I sincerely hope there are fewer of them on Poole Council at the next election, especially these two.
.......
Their party has already gone down the pan in Westminster, hopefully they will in Poole as well.

THE LIB DEMS are a NASTY party,
They are more dangerous than the other partys.Because they are left wing,
socialists,
The LIB DEMS actualy carry out what they preach,in their bigited LIberal way,
They get in communitys and win them on their side,All the while undermining our traditional British way of life.
It wasnt long ago ,they would of been put in the TOWER for that,
Dont for god sake vote for them.

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]No....For being quite offensive to the good people of Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]As I've said before, in general I have no time for politicians at any level and now we have proof of their opinion of the electorate, so my opinion is justified.
.......
We've now had two LibDems, Tony Trent and Mike Supersnooper, ignoring the facts over the proposed TSPs and being totally offensive to the residents of Creekmoor. If they are typical of LibDems in their nasty attitudes to the people they are supposed to be working for (the people of Poole) and who pay their allowances and expenses, I sincerely hope there are fewer of them on Poole Council at the next election, especially these two.
.......
Their party has already gone down the pan in Westminster, hopefully they will in Poole as well.[/p][/quote]THE LIB DEMS are a NASTY party,
They are more dangerous than the other partys.Because they are left wing,
socialists,
The LIB DEMS actualy carry out what they preach,in their bigited LIberal way,
They get in communitys and win them on their side,All the while undermining our traditional British way of life.
It wasnt long ago ,they would of been put in the TOWER for that,
Dont for god sake vote for them.cromwell9

Bob49 wrote:
&quot;if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU "

really ?

was it UKIP who told us that Farage has trousered around £2m in expenses from the EU, or that he employs his wife (as with other dodgy MPs) who is German to do (cook) his books ?

so you carry on bleating out your ill informed nonsense Marti as the louder your squeaks are the less the serious questions can be heard - and the better that suits the other three

BOB 49 must be a LIB DEM.
O DEAR,

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
"if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU "
really ?
was it UKIP who told us that Farage has trousered around £2m in expenses from the EU, or that he employs his wife (as with other dodgy MPs) who is German to do (cook) his books ?
so you carry on bleating out your ill informed nonsense Marti as the louder your squeaks are the less the serious questions can be heard - and the better that suits the other three[/p][/quote]BOB 49 must be a LIB DEM.
O DEAR,cromwell9

Why not just buy them a farm in Ireland and tell them to stay at home and enjoy the gift from Poole council.or set up an artillery piece on th upon bypass.either way you will get the opportunity to buy some Heather from Canford heath.or be told that paying by check May attract local workmen that pay tax and insurance

Why not just buy them a farm in Ireland and tell them to stay at home and enjoy the gift from Poole council.or set up an artillery piece on th upon bypass.either way you will get the opportunity to buy some Heather from Canford heath.or be told that paying by check May attract local workmen that pay tax and insurancekalebmoledirt

Bob49 wrote:
&quot;if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU "

really ?

was it UKIP who told us that Farage has trousered around £2m in expenses from the EU, or that he employs his wife (as with other dodgy MPs) who is German to do (cook) his books ?

so you carry on bleating out your ill informed nonsense Marti as the louder your squeaks are the less the serious questions can be heard - and the better that suits the other three

Well actually Bib, Farage only claws back a little bit from the EU what your lot have already given away, £1.6 billion a month to be a member of a political union that is the cause of so many of the problems we face in Britain today. Now I am sure that makes perfect sense to you but for most sensible folk its an expense we could well do without as you will find out on May 25th when the results come in for the EU elections. I hear the LibDem MEP's are already clearing their desks out :)

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
"if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU "
really ?
was it UKIP who told us that Farage has trousered around £2m in expenses from the EU, or that he employs his wife (as with other dodgy MPs) who is German to do (cook) his books ?
so you carry on bleating out your ill informed nonsense Marti as the louder your squeaks are the less the serious questions can be heard - and the better that suits the other three[/p][/quote]Well actually Bib, Farage only claws back a little bit from the EU what your lot have already given away, £1.6 billion a month to be a member of a political union that is the cause of so many of the problems we face in Britain today. Now I am sure that makes perfect sense to you but for most sensible folk its an expense we could well do without as you will find out on May 25th when the results come in for the EU elections. I hear the LibDem MEP's are already clearing their desks out :)Marty Caine UKIP

DorsetFerret wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.

You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...

The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.

You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.

You do realise that getting abuse from someone who does not have the guts to put their name to what they say only amuses me, especially when I know that if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU and this country would have been handed over to a bunch of dangerous unelected bureaucrats without any public consultation whatsoever.

You crack me up Marty...like your views are in some way special because you make them under your own name. Frankly I'd be embarrassed to be associated by name to some of the rubbish you post.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option.
You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)[/p][/quote]Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...[/p][/quote]The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.[/p][/quote]You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.[/p][/quote]You do realise that getting abuse from someone who does not have the guts to put their name to what they say only amuses me, especially when I know that if it wasn't for UKIP the public would not have been told anything about the goings on in the EU and this country would have been handed over to a bunch of dangerous unelected bureaucrats without any public consultation whatsoever.[/p][/quote]You crack me up Marty...like your views are in some way special because you make them under your own name. Frankly I'd be embarrassed to be associated by name to some of the rubbish you post.Baysider

Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them

Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a
rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop.

Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots.

Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia.

For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them.

I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.

Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them
Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a
rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop.
Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots.
Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia.
For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them.
I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.Bob49

Bob49 wrote:
Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them

Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a
rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop.

Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots.

Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia.

For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them.

I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.

More than willing to meet for a coffee and compare our IQ levels if you like Bob but from the nonsense you have just posted I can assure you, you will be sadly disappointed. The fact is our current membership of the EU is £19.2 billion a year, that is a documented fact, the costs however to Britain is somewhere in the region of £150 billion a year, when you take into account all the stealth charges of the EU regulations which we must abide by whilst remaining members. Open borders is an EU policy that cannot be changed and the only way Britain can put an end to mass uncontrolled immigration is to exit the EU. If you are in any doubts whatsoever that you can actually negotiate with those who really are behind the madness of the EU I strongly urge you to watch this video interview.

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them
Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a
rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop.
Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots.
Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia.
For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them.
I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.[/p][/quote]More than willing to meet for a coffee and compare our IQ levels if you like Bob but from the nonsense you have just posted I can assure you, you will be sadly disappointed. The fact is our current membership of the EU is £19.2 billion a year, that is a documented fact, the costs however to Britain is somewhere in the region of £150 billion a year, when you take into account all the stealth charges of the EU regulations which we must abide by whilst remaining members. Open borders is an EU policy that cannot be changed and the only way Britain can put an end to mass uncontrolled immigration is to exit the EU. If you are in any doubts whatsoever that you can actually negotiate with those who really are behind the madness of the EU I strongly urge you to watch this video interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/iplayer/episode/b03
mzp9r/HARDtalk_Laszl
o_Andor_EU_Employmen
t_and_Social_Affairs
_Commissioner/Marty Caine UKIP

snowite wrote:
Why doesn't Poole Council open up Creekmoor Park and Ride for the travellers?

It is very underused at present.

You haven't been keeping up. It can't be used because, apart from being in the green belt, government money was used to build it and the conditions imposed at the time won't let it be used for anything else.
.....
In any case what about the poor people who bought brand new houses on Upton Road with the assurance that the green field opposite them would never be built on? They've already seen that field tarmaced over and now you want them to suffer travellers. That's a selfish case of "anyone can have them except me. I only care about me."

[quote][p][bold]snowite[/bold] wrote:
Why doesn't Poole Council open up Creekmoor Park and Ride for the travellers?
It is very underused at present.[/p][/quote]You haven't been keeping up. It can't be used because, apart from being in the green belt, government money was used to build it and the conditions imposed at the time won't let it be used for anything else.
.....
In any case what about the poor people who bought brand new houses on Upton Road with the assurance that the green field opposite them would never be built on? They've already seen that field tarmaced over and now you want them to suffer travellers. That's a selfish case of "anyone can have them except me. I only care about me."Carolyn43

At last rationality prevails Poole council finally realising that they should move the travellers away from where they set up camp and to improve security in other places.
Yet another example of the locals telling Poole council how to do their jobs because they cannot be trusted to decide themselves.

At last rationality prevails Poole council finally realising that they should move the travellers away from where they set up camp and to improve security in other places.
Yet another example of the locals telling Poole council how to do their jobs because they cannot be trusted to decide themselves.Ikavanagh

DorsetFerret wrote: You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option. You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.

What, for being honest?

Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)

Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...

The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.

You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.

Either way, they're ahead of the lib dems as proved during the live debates, look at the statistics of the results of the poll about who people percieved to win those debates, not that many people can all be wrong

[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: You still haven’t grasped the message councillor Trent. Your previous comments about ‘The Creekmoor Mob’ and your comments on these post about ‘Spin Campaigns’ just go to show how out of touch and arrogant you are. Caroline43 is absolutely right in her summary of the planning process that applied to the TTS but before this there was the waste of tax payers money for a consultative report, certain councillors ignoring it's findings and the dubious means by which Creekmoor appeared as the favoured option. You and your colleagues are elected to represent the view of those people in your wards, not foster your own view on them. Just because you didn’t get your way do you have the right to revert to name calling. You have managed to do a great disservice to the Lib/Dems in this area and lost them many votes at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider stepping down.[/p][/quote]What, for being honest?[/p][/quote]Honest about what exactly? I've just had a LibDem campaign booklet pushed through my letterbox containing some of the worst scaremongering I have seen so far, apparently according to the LieDims, 3 million jobs are at risk if we leave the European Union. This is utter nonsense because you do not have to be part of a political union to trade with Europe, in fact outside the constraints of the EU we will be trading globally which will increase jobs not put them at risk. It is this kind of blatant lying which will see the end of the LibDem party for good. The last page of the booklet states they are delivering jobs for Poole and the imprint clearly states, Printed in Somerset, too funny :)[/p][/quote]Marty The UKIP fanatic complaining about nonsense and scaremongering. The very definition of irony...[/p][/quote]The irony is the fact that LibDems accuse us of scaremongering for relaying truths and at the same time produce campaign literature like that. None of which actually alters the basic fact that a temporary stopping place or transit site is not ever going to solve the problem, whereas making it as difficult as possible for caravans to get onto those open spaces is. Even you have to see the sense in that Baysider.[/p][/quote]You and your UKIP pals wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you or your aging backsides and you're very happy to peddle dubious facts, dodgy syats and blatent lies when it suits you...but lets not get into that again.[/p][/quote]Either way, they're ahead of the lib dems as proved during the live debates, look at the statistics of the results of the poll about who people percieved to win those debates, not that many people can all be wrongkangaroo_joey

Bob49 wrote:
Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop. Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots. Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia. For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them. I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.

If you think they need someone with a better IQ to speak up for them then that really doesnt say alot for the Lib Dems does it as cast your mind back 3 weeks ago when Farage and Clegg went head to head and please tell me the results of both of the polls the papers and sky news carried out, although I doubt you'll tell me the results as they were that Farage wiped the floor with Clegg so that doesnt say alot for your argument that Farage has low IQ

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop. Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots. Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia. For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them. I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.[/p][/quote]If you think they need someone with a better IQ to speak up for them then that really doesnt say alot for the Lib Dems does it as cast your mind back 3 weeks ago when Farage and Clegg went head to head and please tell me the results of both of the polls the papers and sky news carried out, although I doubt you'll tell me the results as they were that Farage wiped the floor with Clegg so that doesnt say alot for your argument that Farage has low IQkangaroo_joey

corozin wrote:
Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there &amp; then &amp; have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.

We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.

Oh dear

THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAW !

That is the whole problem

look up the ruling that gave these people an 'ethnic' status and see what that requires BY LAW local councils to do

grasp that and the rest falls into place

Oh no,
The Cornish have just been granted 'ethnic minority' status!
Don't tell me we are going to be invaded by hordes of wild, maniac Cornishmen as well!
I think not as it's only the travellers (and immigrants) who use the law to their own good.
Change the law - change the problem.
Now are any political parties going to make a stand for us the people they represent and promise to push through legislation to change this absurdly one sided equation we find ourselves having to work out.

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]corozin[/bold] wrote:
Enforce the law. Either they move the Caravans or lose them there & then & have them crushed. No arguments, no appeals, just enforcement.
We cannot have people thinking they are entitled to live by a different set of laws to the rest of us.[/p][/quote]Oh dear
THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAW !
That is the whole problem
look up the ruling that gave these people an 'ethnic' status and see what that requires BY LAW local councils to do
grasp that and the rest falls into place[/p][/quote]Oh no,
The Cornish have just been granted 'ethnic minority' status!
Don't tell me we are going to be invaded by hordes of wild, maniac Cornishmen as well!
I think not as it's only the travellers (and immigrants) who use the law to their own good.
Change the law - change the problem.
Now are any political parties going to make a stand for us the people they represent and promise to push through legislation to change this absurdly one sided equation we find ourselves having to work out.canfordcherry

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.

Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?

[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.[/p][/quote]No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.[/p][/quote]Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?Carolyn43

Bottom line...........
If you live here and pay tax and go down town and drop a fag end....you will be fined.
If you come to our town in a group and tear down our fences around our recreation grounds and pollute and defecate , you are allowed to do it !
End of.
Well done Trent .
This is the majority not the minority of these people that do this.
Also what was Mannings Heath road built for then, millions spent on that dump as well!!!!!
Counsellors and police and bloody politicians are here to milk and keep the rest of decent people in check and to extort money in one form or another.

Bottom line...........
If you live here and pay tax and go down town and drop a fag end....you will be fined.
If you come to our town in a group and tear down our fences around our recreation grounds and pollute and defecate , you are allowed to do it !
End of.
Well done Trent .
This is the majority not the minority of these people that do this.
Also what was Mannings Heath road built for then, millions spent on that dump as well!!!!!
Counsellors and police and bloody politicians are here to milk and keep the rest of decent people in check and to extort money in one form or another.Peroni

ADST_2008 wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..

Judging by the amount of negative votes its NIMBY,ism in the extreme. No more comments from SuperPooer?

[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..[/p][/quote]Judging by the amount of negative votes its NIMBY,ism in the extreme. No more comments from SuperPooer?ADST_2008

ADST_2008 wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..

Judging by the amount of negative votes its NIMBY,ism in the extreme. No more comments from SuperPooer?

Not once some of us realised who he is - a local business person, involved in local politics, involved in organising election campaigns and who did his best to trash the Conservatives with nasty personal attacks. Isn't that right Mike?
........
I reckon he's been told by higher ups in his party to stop for going too far in his attempted libellous assassination of a Creekmoor councillor.

[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote:
Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..[/p][/quote]Judging by the amount of negative votes its NIMBY,ism in the extreme. No more comments from SuperPooer?[/p][/quote]Not once some of us realised who he is - a local business person, involved in local politics, involved in organising election campaigns and who did his best to trash the Conservatives with nasty personal attacks. Isn't that right Mike?
........
I reckon he's been told by higher ups in his party to stop for going too far in his attempted libellous assassination of a Creekmoor councillor.Carolyn43

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.

Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?

Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.[/p][/quote]No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.[/p][/quote]Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?[/p][/quote]Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.Marty Caine UKIP

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.

Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?

Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.

Why then are Irish Traveller Movement currently petitioning to have their status as a separate ethnic group recognised in Eire? Currently they are not and Ireland is in the EU.
......
There are various petitions on the web asking for support for their human rights as an ethnic minority in various countries, including the UK and internationally . If they already are, why the petitions?
.....
There is also an HM petition for removal of their rights.
.....
I'm now totally confused.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.[/p][/quote]No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.[/p][/quote]Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?[/p][/quote]Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.[/p][/quote]Why then are Irish Traveller Movement currently petitioning to have their status as a separate ethnic group recognised in Eire? Currently they are not and Ireland is in the EU.
......
There are various petitions on the web asking for support for their human rights as an ethnic minority in various countries, including the UK and internationally . If they already are, why the petitions?
.....
There is also an HM petition for removal of their rights.
.....
I'm now totally confused.Carolyn43

InAug 2000 Judge Goldstein ruled (in an ENGLISH court) that Irish travellers were a seperate ethnic group...something that was alteady recognised in another part of the UK.. Northern ireland.

However the devil has always been in the detail as there has been no real clear determination or clarification of actual what defines anm Irish Traveller. This has always been the problem. As long as no one has challenged this they can claim the protection of laws that were intended to stop the horrors of the 2nd World war, not allow a pile of latter day bandits to roam free around the countryside causing mayhem. Address that anomoly, because that is the root cause of the current problem.

Unfortunately this extremely obvious factor has constantly been ignored and clouded over by the idiotic bleats of the ' political correctness gone mad' brigade who use this problem as a means to bleat about the wickedness of the EU. Totally missing the point. That point being why has NO UK government revisited this ruling.

Remove that ruling and you go a long way to removing the 'protection and, what most of us see as the exemption from the law, of these folk.

Reading the constant ill informed rants on here makes me wonder how much the travellers are being helped by the sheer stupidity of these halfwits.

I cannot see how there is ANY confusion.
InAug 2000 Judge Goldstein ruled (in an ENGLISH court) that Irish travellers were a seperate ethnic group...something that was alteady recognised in another part of the UK.. Northern ireland.
However the devil has always been in the detail as there has been no real clear determination or clarification of actual what defines anm Irish Traveller. This has always been the problem. As long as no one has challenged this they can claim the protection of laws that were intended to stop the horrors of the 2nd World war, not allow a pile of latter day bandits to roam free around the countryside causing mayhem. Address that anomoly, because that is the root cause of the current problem.
Unfortunately this extremely obvious factor has constantly been ignored and clouded over by the idiotic bleats of the ' political correctness gone mad' brigade who use this problem as a means to bleat about the wickedness of the EU. Totally missing the point. That point being why has NO UK government revisited this ruling.
Remove that ruling and you go a long way to removing the 'protection and, what most of us see as the exemption from the law, of these folk.
Reading the constant ill informed rants on here makes me wonder how much the travellers are being helped by the sheer stupidity of these halfwits.Bob49

buster61 wrote:
WHY , WHY , WHY are these wasters not prosecuted ??? They leave a mess where ever they go , they just get away with it . they should be continually hounded by the authorities ,, all vehicles should be checked time and time again for tax, MOT etc . Why are they not charged ,, if i set up camp on public land i am sure i would be prosecuted for trespass and yet these vagabonds are allowed to .get away with it . The sooner the law starts to do its job and PROSECUTE , the sooner they will learn to behave .

Your not likely to hit someone with a baseball bat, perhaps is the reason you will get prosecuted.

[quote][p][bold]buster61[/bold] wrote:
WHY , WHY , WHY are these wasters not prosecuted ??? They leave a mess where ever they go , they just get away with it . they should be continually hounded by the authorities ,, all vehicles should be checked time and time again for tax, MOT etc . Why are they not charged ,, if i set up camp on public land i am sure i would be prosecuted for trespass and yet these vagabonds are allowed to .get away with it . The sooner the law starts to do its job and PROSECUTE , the sooner they will learn to behave .[/p][/quote]Your not likely to hit someone with a baseball bat, perhaps is the reason you will get prosecuted.Dorset Logic

UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.

On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.

And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.

She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....

Too late Judy,,, too late...

UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.
On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.
And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.
She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....
Too late Judy,,, too late...SuperSnooper

SuperSnooper wrote:
UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.

On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.

And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.

She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....

Too late Judy,,, too late...

Now, now Mike - just stop having a go at her. You didn't manage to damage her, but you are damaging your own party, the LibDems.

[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote:
UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.
On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.
And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.
She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....
Too late Judy,,, too late...[/p][/quote]Now, now Mike - just stop having a go at her. You didn't manage to damage her, but you are damaging your own party, the LibDems.Carolyn43

SuperSnooper wrote:
UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.

On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.

And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.

She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....

Too late Judy,,, too late...

Wow, so you are a member of Hope Not Hate then that is interesting to know, though it doesn't come as much as a surprise. Yes I have also seen that email as well but there are others ways to find out what UKIP are doing, locally you can simply look on www.ukip-poole.org events page, we don't actually hide what we are doing.

As for the TSP, although Judy Butt did work extremely hard for her constituents to get that plan stopped, in the end it was actually more to do with the council being in breach of their own code of conduct rules than anything that Judy did. They simply realised that if it went ahead it would bite them in their Butt, maybe thats where you have gotten a little confused.

[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote:
UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.
On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.
And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.
She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....
Too late Judy,,, too late...[/p][/quote]Wow, so you are a member of Hope Not Hate then that is interesting to know, though it doesn't come as much as a surprise. Yes I have also seen that email as well but there are others ways to find out what UKIP are doing, locally you can simply look on www.ukip-poole.org events page, we don't actually hide what we are doing.
As for the TSP, although Judy Butt did work extremely hard for her constituents to get that plan stopped, in the end it was actually more to do with the council being in breach of their own code of conduct rules than anything that Judy did. They simply realised that if it went ahead it would bite them in their Butt, maybe thats where you have gotten a little confused.Marty Caine UKIP

SuperSnooper wrote:
UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.

On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.

And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.

She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....

Too late Judy,,, too late...

Wow, so you are a member of Hope Not Hate then that is interesting to know, though it doesn't come as much as a surprise. Yes I have also seen that email as well but there are others ways to find out what UKIP are doing, locally you can simply look on www.ukip-poole.org events page, we don't actually hide what we are doing.

As for the TSP, although Judy Butt did work extremely hard for her constituents to get that plan stopped, in the end it was actually more to do with the council being in breach of their own code of conduct rules than anything that Judy did. They simply realised that if it went ahead it would bite them in their Butt, maybe thats where you have gotten a little confused.

He's also lashing out because he's been politically emasculated by two women and that obviously doesn't sit well with him. He knows his party is finished and he won't get further politically than he already has and will probably be ousted at the next election, so his only actions are to try to assassinate the reputation of one of the women he's second fiddle to.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote:
UKIP,,,, you do have do many infiltrators,, it must be a nightmare at meetings to know who is with you and who is just taking notes...
Yesterday I was sent an email with all your meetings across the UK, who the speakers are and who could attend to spy on what you are up to.
On the upside, this must mean that you have people worried so now you are being given the same treatment as real parties,,, infiltrated.
And on the gypsy issue,,, there is just one person in Poole that is responsible for any travelers that set up camp this year,,, Judy Butt,, if she had done her job right the transit camp would have given the police the power to arrest anyone on Branksome park, Whitecliff and so on.
She is now doing her best to try to distance herself from her deeds,, fearfull that she is being dumped from the Tory party....
Too late Judy,,, too late...[/p][/quote]Wow, so you are a member of Hope Not Hate then that is interesting to know, though it doesn't come as much as a surprise. Yes I have also seen that email as well but there are others ways to find out what UKIP are doing, locally you can simply look on www.ukip-poole.org events page, we don't actually hide what we are doing.
As for the TSP, although Judy Butt did work extremely hard for her constituents to get that plan stopped, in the end it was actually more to do with the council being in breach of their own code of conduct rules than anything that Judy did. They simply realised that if it went ahead it would bite them in their Butt, maybe thats where you have gotten a little confused.[/p][/quote]He's also lashing out because he's been politically emasculated by two women and that obviously doesn't sit well with him. He knows his party is finished and he won't get further politically than he already has and will probably be ousted at the next election, so his only actions are to try to assassinate the reputation of one of the women he's second fiddle to.Carolyn43

RageAgainstTheMachin e wrote: Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list! Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?

Don't know why they should - it wasn't the residents of Creekmoor or councillors of Creekmoor who caused the Planning Committee to reject the two proposed sites. Since when have the council ever listened to what residents want? The sites were rejected because the Planning Committee decided the two sites were totally unsuitable in terms of various safety aspects, wouldn't be used by the travellers and would be a total waste of any more council taxpayers money. They'd already wasted enough picking and spending money on the preparation of the two sites. ........ All that is the fault of the Planning Department for not looking at all aspects of the sites they suggested.

Thought it was councilour Mike White that screwed up!

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]RageAgainstTheMachin e[/bold] wrote: Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list! Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?[/p][/quote]Don't know why they should - it wasn't the residents of Creekmoor or councillors of Creekmoor who caused the Planning Committee to reject the two proposed sites. Since when have the council ever listened to what residents want? The sites were rejected because the Planning Committee decided the two sites were totally unsuitable in terms of various safety aspects, wouldn't be used by the travellers and would be a total waste of any more council taxpayers money. They'd already wasted enough picking and spending money on the preparation of the two sites. ........ All that is the fault of the Planning Department for not looking at all aspects of the sites they suggested.[/p][/quote]Thought it was councilour Mike White that screwed up!ADST_2008

RageAgainstTheMachin e wrote: Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list! Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?

Don't know why they should - it wasn't the residents of Creekmoor or councillors of Creekmoor who caused the Planning Committee to reject the two proposed sites. Since when have the council ever listened to what residents want? The sites were rejected because the Planning Committee decided the two sites were totally unsuitable in terms of various safety aspects, wouldn't be used by the travellers and would be a total waste of any more council taxpayers money. They'd already wasted enough picking and spending money on the preparation of the two sites. ........ All that is the fault of the Planning Department for not looking at all aspects of the sites they suggested.

Thought it was councilour Mike White that screwed up!

Wasn't that Mike I was referring to.

[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]RageAgainstTheMachin e[/bold] wrote: Notice that Creekmoor is not added to that list! Is that two fingers stuck up at the poor residents of Creekmoor from the council for having to scrap the proposed site at Creekmoor/Fleets sites?[/p][/quote]Don't know why they should - it wasn't the residents of Creekmoor or councillors of Creekmoor who caused the Planning Committee to reject the two proposed sites. Since when have the council ever listened to what residents want? The sites were rejected because the Planning Committee decided the two sites were totally unsuitable in terms of various safety aspects, wouldn't be used by the travellers and would be a total waste of any more council taxpayers money. They'd already wasted enough picking and spending money on the preparation of the two sites. ........ All that is the fault of the Planning Department for not looking at all aspects of the sites they suggested.[/p][/quote]Thought it was councilour Mike White that screwed up![/p][/quote]Wasn't that Mike I was referring to.Carolyn43

As for the gypsy situation,, you lot that pretend to actually know what you are talking about,,, don't have a clue....

The evidence from other authorities that have transit camps is that very few ever use them....!!!!!!!! That is the whole point,,, no one wants these people in the town,, the solution,, have a transit camp,, that then give the police the power to "immediately" move gypsies off from our parks, if the don't go, they get arrested, this is what everyone wants,, now these travelers are not as thick as we would like to think,, so what happens, is very quickly they realise the situation so the just set up camp in the next town,, this is what all the evidence has shown from authorities that have transit camps...

The people of creekmoor should have been made aware of this,, the camps on their patch would never have been used... They were just the deterant required under the existing legislation...

But of course, the idiot Butt decided to throw a wobble over it and has single handedly shafted the whole of Poole....

Then this week she tried to creep back into favour with the party by her lick **** letter,,, I wish I could upload pictures on here,, you lot would then see what she is really like....

Lol,,, you lot are do far off the mark....
UKIP,, I will actually be (secretly) voting UKIP in the Europeans.
As for the gypsy situation,, you lot that pretend to actually know what you are talking about,,, don't have a clue....
The evidence from other authorities that have transit camps is that very few ever use them....!!!!!!!! That is the whole point,,, no one wants these people in the town,, the solution,, have a transit camp,, that then give the police the power to "immediately" move gypsies off from our parks, if the don't go, they get arrested, this is what everyone wants,, now these travelers are not as thick as we would like to think,, so what happens, is very quickly they realise the situation so the just set up camp in the next town,, this is what all the evidence has shown from authorities that have transit camps...
The people of creekmoor should have been made aware of this,, the camps on their patch would never have been used... They were just the deterant required under the existing legislation...
But of course, the idiot Butt decided to throw a wobble over it and has single handedly shafted the whole of Poole....
Then this week she tried to creep back into favour with the party by her lick **** letter,,, I wish I could upload pictures on here,, you lot would then see what she is really like....SuperSnooper

Oh dear, SuperPooper is off again with his delusions of secret knowledge. First signs of paranoia, believing that only you know the truth, and everyone else has been fooled.

Nurse, bring the meds!

Oh dear, SuperPooper is off again with his delusions of secret knowledge. First signs of paranoia, believing that only you know the truth, and everyone else has been fooled.
Nurse, bring the meds!Jo__Go

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.

Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?

Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.

Why then are Irish Traveller Movement currently petitioning to have their status as a separate ethnic group recognised in Eire? Currently they are not and Ireland is in the EU.
......
There are various petitions on the web asking for support for their human rights as an ethnic minority in various countries, including the UK and internationally . If they already are, why the petitions?
.....
There is also an HM petition for removal of their rights.
.....
I'm now totally confused.

If these people lead a 'travelling lifestyle', where do they go to in the Winter??
Perhaps you could give your name to the local Councils, as I am sure, as
a great supporter of these Travellers, you will pleased to relieve the Council
workers of their delighful chore of cleaning up what I have heard one Councillor describe as 'stomach-churning' messes.

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.[/p][/quote]No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.[/p][/quote]Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?[/p][/quote]Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.[/p][/quote]Why then are Irish Traveller Movement currently petitioning to have their status as a separate ethnic group recognised in Eire? Currently they are not and Ireland is in the EU.
......
There are various petitions on the web asking for support for their human rights as an ethnic minority in various countries, including the UK and internationally . If they already are, why the petitions?
.....
There is also an HM petition for removal of their rights.
.....
I'm now totally confused.[/p][/quote]If these people lead a 'travelling lifestyle', where do they go to in the Winter??
Perhaps you could give your name to the local Councils, as I am sure, as
a great supporter of these Travellers, you will pleased to relieve the Council
workers of their delighful chore of cleaning up what I have heard one Councillor describe as 'stomach-churning' messes.mimi55

Tony Trent wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to &quot;what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.

Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.

No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.

Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?

Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.

Why then are Irish Traveller Movement currently petitioning to have their status as a separate ethnic group recognised in Eire? Currently they are not and Ireland is in the EU.
......
There are various petitions on the web asking for support for their human rights as an ethnic minority in various countries, including the UK and internationally . If they already are, why the petitions?
.....
There is also an HM petition for removal of their rights.
.....
I'm now totally confused.

If these people lead a 'travelling lifestyle', where do they go to in the Winter??
Perhaps you could give your name to the local Councils, as I am sure, as
a great supporter of these Travellers, you will pleased to relieve the Council
workers of their delighful chore of cleaning up what I have heard one Councillor describe as 'stomach-churning' messes.

P.S You must be aware that after the 12 proposed spaces at Creekmoor had
been filled, no more Travellers could be moved on?

[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote:
It may be a one off, but Marty Caine's point about the actual decision made by the Cabinet on Tuesday night is true. They did not support the hypothication of the £231,000 towards improving site security, they changed it to "what's neccessary to protect the 6 sites identified" - in other words there will be other sites that become more vulnerable. The six sites were selected based on recent incursions, and the close proximity of play areas and sports facilities. The only way to deal effectively with the situation is to provide a transit site or temporary stopping place. The problem is that the most suitable site has been rejected after what has to be one of the most effective spin campaigns of recent years. As for small sites dotted around the town where problems are not caused, these do exist already - including on the edge of my ward where a handful of travellers turn up and are virtually unoticed, as indeed there is in Creekmoor. You could not formalise these, and many are on privately owned land anyway. What we have now is the best of a bad job and is not a long term solution. As for traveller rights, I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old. If that is the case then we have to come up with a package that manages the situation in the interests of all rather than one side or another - albeit that the closet facists might have other ideas.[/p][/quote]Travellers rights built into the core principles of Britain.
Your saying that criminal damage ,intimidation,theft and robbery ,pollution and littering ,and a complete lack of any morals as a human being .
Is built into Britain ......no.
Just people like you and cowards of a police force can't enforce these people to live like decent people.[/p][/quote]No, just the right to live a nomadic lifestyle. At least a proper site can be managed. Also beware of generalisations, not all travellers cause mayhem. One group a couple of years ago who parked up near Branksome Chine surprised all concerned when they tidied up afterwards leaving little or no trace they were ever there. Some other groups seem to live down to the expectations of those around them, which undermines any attempt to accomodate their needs. Life doesn't fit the neat packages that people like to put it in, and things like the need for evidence and witnesses gets in the way of taking a hard line - though that's for the Police to comment on.[/p][/quote]Tony Trent, I contacted MP Robert Syms and asked him why travellers are regarded as a separate ethnic group and not subjected to the same laws as the rest of us, while in Eire they are not recognised as an ethnic group. He said that it is because we are a member of the EU and subscribe to the Human Rights Act, while the Irish, although members of the EU, have not signed up the Human Rights Act.
......
So who's right? You saying "I gather that these were built into the core principles on which Britain is based on and are almost 1,000 years old.", or Robert Syms?[/p][/quote]Robert Syms is wrong, the ECHR is written into The Treaty of Lisbon and every member of the EU has to abide by it, there is no opt out option.[/p][/quote]Why then are Irish Traveller Movement currently petitioning to have their status as a separate ethnic group recognised in Eire? Currently they are not and Ireland is in the EU.
......
There are various petitions on the web asking for support for their human rights as an ethnic minority in various countries, including the UK and internationally . If they already are, why the petitions?
.....
There is also an HM petition for removal of their rights.
.....
I'm now totally confused.[/p][/quote]If these people lead a 'travelling lifestyle', where do they go to in the Winter??
Perhaps you could give your name to the local Councils, as I am sure, as
a great supporter of these Travellers, you will pleased to relieve the Council
workers of their delighful chore of cleaning up what I have heard one Councillor describe as 'stomach-churning' messes.[/p][/quote]P.S You must be aware that after the 12 proposed spaces at Creekmoor had
been filled, no more Travellers could be moved on?mimi55

Bob49 wrote:
Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them

Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a
rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop.

Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots.

Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia.

For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them.

I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.

Keep going! The more you try to disparage UKIP the more votes you get
them!

[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote:
Sadly UKIP haven't quite gtasped that it might help their cause if they could find someone with an IQ in double figures to squeak up for them
Tthere is NO £19.2m annual contribution to the EU. There is however a
rough figure of around £5/6bn contribution, which is no more than a means to secure markets in developing parts of the EU, as when Tesco runs a free bus to take shoppers to it's shop.
Who realy benefits from this and who looses by having mass immigration are moot points. Points that need to be looked at closely through reasoned and informed debate, not drowned out by ill informed and innaccurate bleats from a bunch of cranks and crackpots.
Because that is the real danger. That you and your fellow fruitcakes are doing the dirty work of the three major parties by muddying the waters with nonsensical drivel that is based on nothing more than your own paranoia.
For your information (and the dimwit above, who I suspect may be a wind up poking fun at you fruitcakes) I am not a Lib Dem, or have ever voted for them or have any intention of voting for them.
I do have concerns about mass immigration, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, but find it very frustrating that those concerns all to often get bundled up with the barking mad who cannot see the harm they are doing to much needed debate by their constant paranoic bleats.[/p][/quote]Keep going! The more you try to disparage UKIP the more votes you get
them!mimi55

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
I wonder if the Council have thought of CCTV on places like Branksome Rec and then at least they may be able to have clear evidence of any criminal activities, not only in relation to the travellers but anyone using those open spaces. It will be all too easy for anyone to smash down something that is stopping them accessing the land and then saying it was already like that when they arrived and without evidence you can't prosecute.

Far too sensible - and the Police would actually have to something then,
wouldn't they?

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
I wonder if the Council have thought of CCTV on places like Branksome Rec and then at least they may be able to have clear evidence of any criminal activities, not only in relation to the travellers but anyone using those open spaces. It will be all too easy for anyone to smash down something that is stopping them accessing the land and then saying it was already like that when they arrived and without evidence you can't prosecute.[/p][/quote]Far too sensible - and the Police would actually have to something then,
wouldn't they?mimi55

BarrHumbug wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?

Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.

Acually, take a look at the criminal justice act - criminal damage is a reason for moving travellers on - Council and Police are just too afraid/politically
correct to do it. (I am told Bournemouth Council did actually use this to move
travellers on in just one hour)

[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai
l[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?[/p][/quote]Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.[/p][/quote]Acually, take a look at the criminal justice act - criminal damage is a reason for moving travellers on - Council and Police are just too afraid/politically
correct to do it. (I am told Bournemouth Council did actually use this to move
travellers on in just one hour)mimi55

BarrHumbug wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?

Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.

Acually, take a look at the criminal justice act - criminal damage is a reason for moving travellers on - Council and Police are just too afraid/politically
correct to do it. (I am told Bournemouth Council did actually use this to move
travellers on in just one hour)

[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai
l[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
But don't the travellers just go on ahead in a car or van and move/dismantle any obstruction ready for when the rest of the cavalcade arrive and then by claiming it was like that when they arrived they can't be had for criminal damage or trespass?[/p][/quote]Doesn't matter even if they did get caught / get found guilty of causing damage - it is a completely separate offence to unlawful occupation. it is an urban myth that if you get caught causing damage you can get evicted - it's not related.[/p][/quote]Acually, take a look at the criminal justice act - criminal damage is a reason for moving travellers on - Council and Police are just too afraid/politically
correct to do it. (I am told Bournemouth Council did actually use this to move
travellers on in just one hour)mimi55

1. I am not a supporter of travellers - most definitely not. I would remove whatever protection they have, confiscate, prosecute and do whatever was necessary to stop them doing as they please.
2. Travellers return to their mansions in Ireland during the winter.
3. You're right - the site at Creekmoor wouldn't have been used. The travellers would have just pitched up on PRIVATE land, which would have cost landowners the same as it did the council to move them on. The problem would just have been to someone else - not somewhere else. It might have solved the problem for the council, but not for the public.
4. Creekmoor would have lost another green area with no economic benefit. At least if Forrell Estates build there, the town will get some economic benefit and the gateway to the town will be a more pleasant site than an empty metal cage. Losing a green area to the white elephant which is the park and ride was appalling.
5. PooperScooper, there's a programme on TV tonight about the rise in trolls using the internet to post offensive and abusive comments about women. You should watch it as it might explain why you do it - it's obviously a psychological problem of hating women who are more successful and popular than you, so therefore something which needs treatment.
6.Being a LibDem you'll have to vote for UKIP secretly, otherwise what you maintain is happening to another councillor would most definitely happen to you as a party traitor. You really are henpecked aren't you.

1. I am not a supporter of travellers - most definitely not. I would remove whatever protection they have, confiscate, prosecute and do whatever was necessary to stop them doing as they please.
2. Travellers return to their mansions in Ireland during the winter.
3. You're right - the site at Creekmoor wouldn't have been used. The travellers would have just pitched up on PRIVATE land, which would have cost landowners the same as it did the council to move them on. The problem would just have been to someone else - not somewhere else. It might have solved the problem for the council, but not for the public.
4. Creekmoor would have lost another green area with no economic benefit. At least if Forrell Estates build there, the town will get some economic benefit and the gateway to the town will be a more pleasant site than an empty metal cage. Losing a green area to the white elephant which is the park and ride was appalling.
5. PooperScooper, there's a programme on TV tonight about the rise in trolls using the internet to post offensive and abusive comments about women. You should watch it as it might explain why you do it - it's obviously a psychological problem of hating women who are more successful and popular than you, so therefore something which needs treatment.
6.Being a LibDem you'll have to vote for UKIP secretly, otherwise what you maintain is happening to another councillor would most definitely happen to you as a party traitor. You really are henpecked aren't you.Carolyn43

SuperSnooper says "But of course, the idiot Butt decided to throw a wobble over it and has single handedly shafted the whole of Poole...."

So are you saying it is Judy Butts fault that BoP did not waste £250,000 building a TSP that would not have been used and this lead to a desolate piece of land being purchased for £400,000 to have offices built that will create 200 new jobs in Poole and no doubt bring in a business rates revenue for over £100,000 a year. If that is truly the case all I can say is.... Well done Judy Butt and its not often you will see me pat a Tory on the back.

SuperSnooper says "But of course, the idiot Butt decided to throw a wobble over it and has single handedly shafted the whole of Poole...."
So are you saying it is Judy Butts fault that BoP did not waste £250,000 building a TSP that would not have been used and this lead to a desolate piece of land being purchased for £400,000 to have offices built that will create 200 new jobs in Poole and no doubt bring in a business rates revenue for over £100,000 a year. If that is truly the case all I can say is.... Well done Judy Butt and its not often you will see me pat a Tory on the back.Marty Caine UKIP

ADST_2008 wrote: Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..

Judging by the amount of negative votes its NIMBY,ism in the extreme. No more comments from SuperPooer?

Not once some of us realised who he is - a local business person, involved in local politics, involved in organising election campaigns and who did his best to trash the Conservatives with nasty personal attacks. Isn't that right Mike? ........ I reckon he's been told by higher ups in his party to stop for going too far in his attempted libellous assassination of a Creekmoor councillor.

Whilst I agree with most of your comments Carolyn43 I do think you have the wrong person identified as SuperSnooper, I think its a disgruntled ex tory who was booted out.

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: Why doesn’t each ward provide say up to 3 pitches for the travelling community that way we can all share the pain and they would be more manageable if this government led EU directive is forced on Poole..[/p][/quote]Judging by the amount of negative votes its NIMBY,ism in the extreme. No more comments from SuperPooer?[/p][/quote]Not once some of us realised who he is - a local business person, involved in local politics, involved in organising election campaigns and who did his best to trash the Conservatives with nasty personal attacks. Isn't that right Mike? ........ I reckon he's been told by higher ups in his party to stop for going too far in his attempted libellous assassination of a Creekmoor councillor.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with most of your comments Carolyn43 I do think you have the wrong person identified as SuperSnooper, I think its a disgruntled ex tory who was booted out.ADST_2008